Duffy, Joseph R.

AbstractBackgroundIndividuals with Primary Progressive Apraxia of Speech (PPAOS) have AOS as the initial and predominant symptom. Many develop aphasia and/or dysarthria later in the disease course. Past research has shown that patients with neurodegenerative AOS experience reduced participation in communication that is further exacerbated by co‐occurring language deficits. Previous studies suggest measures of disease severity do not necessarily correlate with measures of participation restrictions. The aim of this study was to describe changes in communication limitations in these patients over a one‐year interval, measured by 1) the patient via the Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB) and 2) the speech‐language pathologist via ASHA's Functional Communication Measures (FCMs) and an adapted Motor Speech Disorder (MSD) severity rating and determine if there are significant changes in these and other objective speech and language measures (e.g. Western Aphasia Battery‐Revised Aphasia Quotient, Apraxia of Speech Rating Scale‐3).MethodSeventeen patients (10 male) with progressive AOS were seen for a second visit approximately one year following the first visit. The measures collected at each visit were statistically compared. Correlations were calculated between the participation ratings and other clinical assessment measures at each visit and qualitatively compared.ResultThere were statistically significant differences in AOS and aphasia severity between visits. There were significant changes in clinical assessments, MSD severity rating, and all ASHA FCMs between visits, but not the CPIB. Comparison of correlations suggest the relationships among clinical and participation measures may change over time.ConclusionThe findings of this study support the use of patient reported outcome measures, like the CPIB, as they may better reflect the patient experience and associated changes in day‐to‐day functioning when other measures may simply index the progression of the disease.

AbstractBackgroundThe Neurodegenerative Research Group (NRG) at Mayo clinic has followed patients with degenerative speech and/or language disorders for over a decade. In this presentation I will present data from this cohort to inform a broader discussion about the importance of apraxia of speech (AOS) and its subtypes, heterogeneity within the agrammatic PPA variant, and perils of mixed phenotypes.MethodWe reviewed the NRG database to identify patients who initially presented with isolated (PPAOS), AOS in conjunction with agrammatic aphasia (AOS‐PAA), isolated agrammatic aphasia (PAA), and patients who had PAA or AOS overlapping with another degenerative diagnosis. Data from the following clinical instruments were abstracted: WAB AQ (aphasia severity), UPDRS III (parkinsonism), WAB Praxis (ideomotor apraxia), and the MoCA (cognitive ability). We assessed the effect of baseline diagnosis and AOS subtype on these outcomes over time using Bayesian linear mixed effects models. We qualitatively reviewed longitudinal diagnostic trajectories. Preliminary analyses were done on available autopsy data.ResultPAA was associated with greater aphasia at baseline and more rapid decline; PPAOS was associated with normal language at baseline and slow decline; and PAA‐AOS with intermediate baseline aphasia and decline. However, for those with AOS longitudinal decline differed based on AOS subtype: prosodic PPAOS was associated with the slowest decline and phonetic PAA‐AOS with the fastest. Some patients met criteria for non‐PPA disorders during follow up. However, compared to patients who met criteria for these disorders at enrollment, the speech/language‐first patients remained qualitatively distinct, and neither resembled the cases that were mixed at onset. Preliminary autopsy data suggests that AOS is predictive of tau and that the specific tauopathy may be related to the initial syndrome and AOS subtype.ConclusionThe differences between PAA, PAA‐AOS and PPAOS suggest that these disorders should not be lumped. In fact, the longitudinal trajectories are sufficiently different that doing so would add noise to observational and interventional studies. Instead, more detailed phenotyping, including AOS subtype, can aid prognostication and may improve prediction of the underlying pathology. Finally, caution should be exercised when considering PPAOS and PPA patients for other FTLD diagnostic categories.

AbstractBackgroundLogopenic progressive aphasia (LPA) and posterior cortical atrophy (PCA) have distinct patterns of hypometabolism and atrophy. However, these clinical syndromes overlap: visuospatial impairment has been documented in LPA and aphasia in PCA. Rey‐Osterrieth Complex Figure – Copy (Rey‐O Copy) performance is correlated with parietal‐occipital atrophy in LPA. We explore visuospatial impairment on the Rey‐O Copy in LPA and PCA with the Mayo Older Americans Normative Studies (MOANS; which uses Meyers & Meyers criteria) and the Boston Qualitative Scoring System (BQSS). We also examine the proportion of visuospatial impairment in LPA, an under‐appreciated phenomenon, compared to PCA wherein it is fundamental.MethodPatients with LPA (n=25) or PCA (n=23) were recruited by the Neurodegenerative Research Group. Patients underwent comprehensive neuropsychological testing (including Rey‐O Copy) at baseline visit. Cut‐offs of T‐score=40 (BQSS) or scaled score=7 (MOANS) were used based on normative data. Proportions of patients with low performance were examined across LPA and PCA groups. Individual logistic regressions and AUROC analyses were then conducted to quantify differences in visuospatial impairment in LPA and PCA with both scoring systems. Identical analyses were conducted using raw scores corrected for age and sex, to avoid confounds of adjustments in normative data.ResultLPA and PCA groups were comparable on age, sex, and disease duration (LPA Median = 2.7 years, IQR=1.9‐3.5; PCA Median = 3.6 years, IQR=1.5‐4.9); p=.823). Surprisingly, 52‐72% of LPA participants demonstrated impaired performance across scoring systems, relative to 96% of the PCA group identified by both scoring systems. Odds ratios (OR) for the Rey‐O Copy MOANS (OR = 1.59; p=.008) and BQSS Copy Presence and Accuracy index (CPA; OR = 1.13, p=.002) were significant, persisting for age‐ and sex‐ controlled raw scores, suggesting the odds of a PCA diagnosis increased with decrement on Rey‐O Copy. AUROC values ranged from 0.77 to 0.88 across these indices.ConclusionA substantial number of LPA participants showed visuospatial impairment, despite initial primary language complaints. Differentiation of diagnostic groups by the Rey‐O is likely underscored by relatively uniform, profound, visuospatial impairment in PCA with more variability in LPA. However, the degree of visuospatial impairment overlaps remarkably across diagnoses.

AbstractBackgroundMagnetic resonance brainstem measurements are useful structural biomarkers in the Richardson's syndrome variant of progressive supranuclear palsy (PSP). However, it is unclear how these biomarkers differ across the phenotypic spectrum of PSP and how they relate to underlying pathology.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to compare brainstem imaging measures across clinical variants of PSP and determine sensitivity and specificity based on pathologically diagnosed cases.MethodsA total of 153 patients with PSP who represented eight clinical variants were recruited at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, MN, USA) and underwent structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI). Midbrain and pons area and superior and middle cerebellar peduncle width measurements were performed, and midbrain/pons ratio and Magnetic Resonance Parkinsonism Index (MRPI) were calculated. Among the 43 patients who later died, PSP pathology was confirmed in 29, whereas 14 had other pathology.ResultsBrainstem measurements varied across PSP clinical variants and were most abnormal in PSP‐Richardson's syndrome and frontal variants, followed by PSP‐corticobasal, PSP‐speech/language, and PSP‐parkinsonism variants. All these variants showed abnormalities compared with controls. The PSP‐gait freezing variant and patients with prominent corticospinal tract signs showed normal brainstem measures. Among cases with confirmed PSP pathology, the midbrain area, midbrain/pons ratio, and MRPI were all more abnormal compared to those with other pathologies, with best differentiation obtained with the MRPI (sensitivity = 83%; specificity = 85%).ConclusionsMRI brainstem measures show utility as diagnostic biomarkers across PSP clinical variants and have the potential to be useful in predicting underlying pathology. © 2021 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society

Purpose This study compared performance on three-word fluency measures among individuals with primary progressive aphasia (PPA) and primary progressive apraxia of speech (PPAOS), and examined the relationship between word fluency and other measures of language and speech. Method This study included 106 adults with PPA and 30 adults with PPAOS. PPA participants were divided into three clinical subgroups: semantic (svPPA), logopenic (lvPPA), and nonfluent/agrammatic with or without apraxia of speech (nfPPA). Category fluency, letter fluency, and action/verb fluency tasks were administered to all participants. Results The four clinical groups performed abnormally on the word fluency measures, although not to a degree that represented high sensitivity to their PPA or PPAOS diagnosis. All PPA subgroups produced fewer words compared to individuals with PPAOS on all word fluency measures. Moderate correlations were found between word fluency and aphasia severity and naming performance in some of the clinical groups. Conclusions Word fluency measures are often challenging for individuals with PPA and PPAOS, but they are not of equal difficulty, with letter fluency being the most difficult. Differences among word fluency tests also vary to some degree as a function of the clinical group in question, with least impairment in PPAOS. However, the findings of this study do not support statistically significant differences in word fluency task performance among the PPA subgroups. Correlations suggest that word fluency performance in PPA is at least partly related to aphasia severity.

ABSTRACTBackgroundProgressive supranuclear palsy (PSP) may present as a speech/language disorder (PSP‐SL).ObjectiveWe assessed pathological correlates of patients with PSP‐SL who retained the suggestive of PSP‐SL (s.o. PSP‐SL) diagnosis versus those who progressed to possible/probable (poss./prob.) PSP.MethodsThirty‐four prospectively recruited patient with s.o. PSP‐SL completed comprehensive speech/language and neurological assessments longitudinally, died, and underwent autopsy.ResultsTwelve patients (35%) evolved to poss./prob PSP, while 22 (65%) remained as s.o. PSP‐SL. Pathological diagnoses differed across the groups (P = 0.025). Patients with s.o. PSP‐SL had four different neuropathologies (corticobasal degeneration [59%], PSP [13%], Pick's disease [14%], and frontotemporal lobar degeneration with TDP‐43 [14%]), while all patients with poss./prob. PSP had a 4R‐tauopathy (PSP [67%] and corticobasal degeneration [33%]). Development of poss./prob. PSP increased the chance of having PSP pathology by 2.38 times.ConclusionsPSP‐SL is associated with heterogenous pathologies. Evolution of PSP‐SL into poss./prob. PSP is more predictive of underlying PSP pathology than s.o. PSP‐SL. © 2021 International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society

Purpose Individuals with primary progressive apraxia of speech have apraxia of speech (AOS) as the initial and predominant symptom. Many develop aphasia and/or dysarthria later in the disease course. It was previously demonstrated that patients with neurodegenerative AOS experience reduced participation in communication that is further exacerbated by co-occurring language deficits ( Utianski et al., 2020 ). Measures of disease severity did not necessarily correlate with measures of participation restrictions. The aim of this follow-up study was to describe changes in communication limitations in these patients, again measured by (a) the patient via the Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB) and (b) the speech-language pathologist via the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association's (ASHA's) Functional Communication Measures (FCMs) and an adapted motor speech disorder (MSD) severity rating to determine if there are significant changes in these and other objective speech and language measures at follow-up after 1 year. Method Of the 24 patients reported in the study of Utianski et al. (2020) , 17 (10 men, seven women) returned for a second visit approximately 1 year following the first visit. Identical procedures were utilized; the communication measures collected at each visit were statistically compared. Correlations were calculated between the participation ratings and other clinical assessment measures at the second visit and for the change in scores on those measures between the first and second visits. Results There were statistically significant differences in AOS and aphasia severity between visits. There were significant changes in clinical assessments, MSD severity rating, and all ASHA FCMs between visits, but not the CPIB. Correlation analyses suggest the relationships among clinical and participation measures are complex; overall, patients with more severe changes in AOS experienced greater changes in participation restrictions. Conclusions The findings of this study support the use of patient-reported outcome measures as they may better reflect the patient experience, including the influence of factors such as ongoing speech therapy and the emergence of neuropsychiatric features, and associated changes in day-to-day functioning, when other measures may simply index the progression of the disease. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.16528512

Purpose Clinical trials have demonstrated that standardized voice treatment programs are effective for some patients, but identifying the unique individual treatment ingredients specifically responsible for observed improvements remains elusive. To address this problem, the authors used a taxonomy of voice therapy, the Rehabilitation Treatment Specification System (RTSS), and a Delphi process to develop the RTSS-Voice (expert consensus categories of measurable and unique voice treatment ingredients and targets). Method Initial targets and ingredients were derived from a taxonomy of voice therapy. Through six Delphi Rounds, 10 vocal rehabilitation experts rated the measurability and uniqueness of individual treatment targets and ingredients. After each round, revisions (guided by the experts' feedback) were finalized among a primary reader (a voice therapy expert) and two external readers (rehabilitation experts outside the field of voice). Consensus was established when the label and definition of an ingredient or target reached a supramajority threshold (≥ 8 of 10 expert agreement). Results Thirty-five target and 19 ingredient categories were agreed to be measurable, unique, and accurate reflections of the rules and terminology of the RTSS. Operational definitions for each category included differences in the way ingredients are delivered and the way individual targets are modified by those ingredients. Conclusions The consensus labels and operationalized ingredients and targets making up the RTSS-Voice have potential to improve voice therapy research, practice, and education/training. The methods used to develop these lists may be useful for other speech, language, and hearing treatment specifications. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.15243357

Purpose This study investigated the relationship between word production rates (WPRs) and phonological error rates (PERs) in generative and responsive tasks in logopenic progressive aphasia (lvPPA). We examined whether a portion of the reduced WPR during generative tasks related directly to phonological impairments affecting PER on all tasks, irrespective of other task differences that contributed to WPR. Method Two cognitive psychometric models were hypothesized and fit to the total number of words produced and the number of phonological errors produced by 22 participants on 10 tasks. Bayesian inference was used to construct posterior distributions of participant ability and task difficulty parameters. Model fit statistics were compared. Association strengths for average generative WPR and average responsive PER were also evaluated with linear least-squares regression. Results Average generative WPR and average responsive PER were significantly associated ( r = −.77, p = .00002). A cognitive psychometric model that assumed reduced WPR on generative tasks reflects a portion of general phonological impairment yielded better fit than a model that ignored performance differences between generative and responsive tasks. Generative fluency tasks that elicited few phonological errors still reflected phonological impairment, via suppression. Individual participants were estimated to suppress between 62% and 93% of phonological errors on generative tasks that would have emerged on responsive tasks. Conclusions Suppression of phonological errors may present as decreased WPR on generative tasks in lvPPA. Failure to account for this suppression tendency may lead to overestimation of phonological ability. The findings indicate the need to account for task demands in assessing lvPPA.